The Next Generation: PlayStation 4 and Xbox One

Had to check out the video based on slym's comment.. Wow, that's something people got worked up over? The announcer is definitely awful and the animation once people get hit is very jarring and about 2 frames - what they looked like before getting hit and what they looked like after.

Just a bullet point on a launch but IMO it moves the needle zero towards wanting a Xbone and probably makes me like it less.

They wanted the huge combos of the original KI. That was one of the draws to the game. So you can't take off enormous health with each hit. Personally, I love the pauses that accentuate each hit.

Ultra combos were always at the end of a game. It was KI's version of Mortal Kombat's fatality, except it took more skill to pull off. I remember when the original KI game came out in the arcades, people were trying desperately to figure out how to make ultra combos last longer or see how many hits they could pull off in the end. I don't get why you think this is bad that an ultra is only at the end of a game, slym.

I looked it up just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me (it game out in 1994, after all): "Ultra Combo: Another finisher; it operates like an Ultimate combo, though this one allows the character to deliver a long string of hits as the combo finisher instead, usually surpassing 20 hits, and can sometimes reach upwards of 80+ hits."

I still can't think of any way using Kinect as a primary control method in a game isn't absolutely fucking terrible unless it's a dancing or fitness title. And all of the voice control in games stuff sounds fucking gimmicky as hell and not at all interesting.

2 things need to happen for any new system to be successful. Number one, it needs to offer *exactly the same* precision as a controller does to appeal to hardcore users, if that's who the console is being marketed to. The PS4 and X1 both fit this bill so a less precise control set up is unacceptable. This is why I don't think the Kinect has any appeal to core users, and never will.

Also, it needs to be inexpensive. That's something no hardware maker has figured out, and these products will continue to fail until they do.

It's a good thing then that replacing the controller as primary control is not the only potential use for a Kinect. If the tech works I could definitely see some more subtle secondary control aspects to it. Head tracking like Track IR is one obvious example, but even just the ability to reach up and do some simple swipes or something to interact with the UI or world.

I'm still skeptical about Kinect just on the "if the tech works" standpoint, but I think all the raging about it being included is way way overblown.

I'm all for jarring animations and an overly loud announcer. That's tapping into my nostalgia. Those KI arcade cabinets were ridiculously loud where I played them so the announcer voice was most of what you heard along with those squealing hits. Hopefully they'll have audio sliders if people don't like that.

The free-to-play part I'm not sure on. I thought many fighter gamers tend to stick to a few characters which wouldn't make the idea of buying all of them realistic. Of course if they wanted to be shady they balance patch the best character as a moving target so people want to buy the latest best fighter.

I still can't think of any way using Kinect as a primary control method in a game isn't absolutely fucking terrible unless it's a dancing or fitness title. And all of the voice control in games stuff sounds fucking gimmicky as hell and not at all interesting.

I think you're right. I do like the idea for tertiary features in games. For example, in an FPS stand by a corner and lean to peak around it or see an incoming grenade and stick your hand up to catch it and throw it back (without having to dedicate a button to 'catch grenade') or in a new Jedi Knight instead of having to had a wheel of force powers and have Force Push selected and, for example, hitting L1 instead you could force push at any time by making the motion.

I'm all for jarring animations and an overly loud announcer. That's tapping into my nostalgia. Those KI arcade cabinets were ridiculously loud where I played them so the announcer voice was most of what you heard along with those squealing hits. Hopefully they'll have audio sliders if people don't like that.

The free-to-play part I'm not sure on. I thought many fighter gamers tend to stick to a few characters which wouldn't make the idea of buying all of them realistic. Of course if they wanted to be shady they balance patch the best character as a moving target so people want to buy the latest best fighter.

They are going to release a full version of the game, as well, with all of the characters.

Buying characters is not Pay to Win unless the free characters are terrible. It's important to get the terminology right and not use hyperbole, because there are a lot of games that really are P2W, and they would like nothing better than to have people assume they are like other F2P games, when they certainly aren't.

Quote:

The free-to-play part I'm not sure on. I thought many fighter gamers tend to stick to a few characters which wouldn't make the idea of buying all of them realistic.

People typically only play a few characters in LoL, but that doesn't stop people from buying a ton of them. Buying characters is one of the most gamer friendly ways of doing F2P, as the free players aren't at any disadvantage at all.

"Consumers will be able to sign on to any Xbox One console and have access to all their digital games. Once the required data -- a fraction of the entire game -- is on their hard drive, they can jump into the action while the rest of the game finishes downloading in the background,"

They are going to release a full version of the game, as well, with all of the characters.

Thought I was maybe missing a disc version, but looking it up it's a digital season pass-like option to buy all characters at once. Probably cheaper way to go, though I wonder where they price all this.

Buying characters is one of the most gamer friendly ways of doing F2P, as the free players aren't at any disadvantage at all.

Oh my.

I'll try to not just tear that appart. It'd be mean.

He perhaps phrased it badly. My understanding (not as a LoL player) is that there is a rotating roster of characters that is free to play from the list of all characters. If there is a character that is not on that roster and you'd like to play as them (because they are your favorite), then you'd have to buy that character. Also from my understanding (not as a player of the game) is that you can purchase powerups with one of two currencies: riot points and influence points. Riot points are buyable with real money, and allow you to purchase champions and cosmetic flair. In game powerups can only be purchased with Influence points, earned only with time in game.

As someone who hates the idea of free to play, even I have to say the model as it has been explained to me seems like a fairly tame F2P.

"Consumers will be able to sign on to any Xbox One console and have access to all their digital games. Once the required data -- a fraction of the entire game -- is on their hard drive, they can jump into the action while the rest of the game finishes downloading in the background,"

I still wonder how well this actually works in practise. The prevalence of very high-speed multi-megabit connections is still not really that high, and with games being multi-gigabyte affairs, even downloading "a fraction" might still be a hefty undertaking.

"Consumers will be able to sign on to any Xbox One console and have access to all their digital games. Once the required data -- a fraction of the entire game -- is on their hard drive, they can jump into the action while the rest of the game finishes downloading in the background,"

I still wonder how well this actually works in practise. The prevalence of very high-speed multi-megabit connections is still not really that high, and with games being multi-gigabyte affairs, even downloading "a fraction" might still be a hefty undertaking.

That will probably depend on the developer as much as the broadband connection. (Granted, 99/100 is still a fraction )

Buying characters is one of the most gamer friendly ways of doing F2P, as the free players aren't at any disadvantage at all.

Oh my.

I'll try to not just tear that appart. It'd be mean.

But the *friendly* way to do F2P is to have everything you can pay real money for be cosmetic only.

Cosmetics are definitely a good way to do F2P if it's a sustainable model for the game. A F2P game that folds because it tried to be super-friendly to players is useful to no-one.

I like the option of half-and-half games where you can buy it for normal retail price for everything, and F2P has a strong subset of utility. Buying characters isn't a bad way to go. Looking back at my fighting game habits over the years, I would have payed less to buy individual characters at $5 a pop than paying for the full game. Aside from occasional achievement hunting, I tend to stay in a range of 4-6 characters.

I just hope they don't micro-payment it that you buy a character, and then still need to buy things like finishing moves.

As far "play as you download" my hopes are kind of low on that. I don't expect any kind of fancy data streaming solution, because of how complex that would be to manage from game to game. I assume whatever system the Xbox One and PS4 use they will have to be the same to save sanity for the developers, and will basically amount to developers creating separate big chunks of file packages such as:

Shell that starts game

Beggining Area of Single Player

Multiplayer

Rest of Single Player

You select single or multiplayer, and it feeds the proper files like what was shown in PS4 promo video. This is quicker than waiting for the whole game, but will still lead to a good amount of waiting. Say you pick multiplayer, any map might need to be loaded after each round, so you'll still have to wait for everything in multiplayer portion to download before it can start. My guess, anyway.

It seems like superficial, bullet point functionality to me since I feel like for any game that is big enough for it matter I will either play something else while the download finishes or just get the disc.

It seems like superficial, bullet point functionality to me since I feel like for any game that is big enough for it matter I will either play something else while the download finishes or just get the disc.

If it works, it will almost certainly result in me buying more games. Impulse buys only work if they're paired with instant gratification, so I tend not to buy many full game downloads. If I can start playing within, say, fifteen minutes of deciding to buy, I'm much more likely to buy on a whim.

"Consumers will be able to sign on to any Xbox One console and have access to all their digital games. Once the required data -- a fraction of the entire game -- is on their hard drive, they can jump into the action while the rest of the game finishes downloading in the background,"

I still wonder how well this actually works in practise. The prevalence of very high-speed multi-megabit connections is still not really that high, and with games being multi-gigabyte affairs, even downloading "a fraction" might still be a hefty undertaking.

This was discussed earlier. For many types of games, this would work just fine. The games it would be hte most difficult for would be the 'full world, total random access' style games. And even those games are pretty rare, and could still be accommodated (albeit possibly with occasional load/wait screens as the data comes in).

A good way to think about it is that, once the engine comes in, the data necessary for a player is usually very specific to where they are located in the game (both positionally, and in terms of how far along they are in hte story). As both of these factors are known, it's not hard to stream in the right data to support the player, while also getting the data that will likely be needed next (if there's enough bandwidth to support that). It would not be too much effort (especially with playthrough data) for the game to have enough knowledge to correctly down the right data most of the time. And, even in the cases where it doesn't and the game is very random, then you might get some loading while that part streams in. Of course, once it does, then you don't need ot pay the cost for those assets again.

I'm a little confused. Are people just discussing F2P philosophically ideal states, or are y'all discussing some specific next gen game(s)?

The Killer Instinct model is that there is a version of the game that is fully F2P with the restriction being that Jago is the only character you can play. You can also buy a digital copy like any other game that unlocks everything for normal game price. I'm not sure if there are microtransactions for certain characters, but I'd imagine the so. There isn't any "pay 2 win" in the sense you won't get an overpowered boss character you can play online, just the rest of the normal cast if you decide to pay normal game price for Killer Instinct.

I just hope they don't micro-payment it that you buy a character, and then still need to buy things like finishing moves.

As far "play as you download" my hopes are kind of low on that. I don't expect any kind of fancy data streaming solution, because of how complex that would be to manage from game to game. I assume whatever system the Xbox One and PS4 use they will have to be the same to save sanity for the developers, and will basically amount to developers creating separate big chunks of file packages such as:

Shell that starts game

Beggining Area of Single Player

Multiplayer

Rest of Single Player

Tons of games are already level based already. It seems like devs have often already done enugh of the work to break things into more granular chunks. Games are also often linear, making the streaming even easier. i.e. if i'm playing ME3, then they know to pull in the first level. As i'm playing that, they can be bringing in mars. Ideally by then they can start pulling in the next places i may choose to go to. And, if i go off that path, then they can pull down what i need, but don't have, and then continue on with the rest while i'm playing that side mission. Missions are pretty lengthy in themselves, so that gives the game lots of time to continue pulling down.

The 'downloading big games' thing will also be alleviated by buying games while you're at work. Both systems (I think) are always in a sleep state, so if MS/Sony can start up the download almost immediately after you buy it off their web stores, then it'll be largely done downloading by the time you get home from work.

At least, that's what I plan on doing for any downloaded titles I buy.

Pretty much anything on UE3 or Unity or other scene-based engines should have no real trouble computing a dependency graph for streaming play. I have my doubts about its effectiveness given ye olde 1.5Mbps minimum bandwidth, but if you have a decent connection it should be fine.

The "download while you play" thing doesn't seem as complicated to me as some people make it out to be. Doesn't Blizzard already do this? I'm sure it's a bit of work, but in the end it comes down to prioritizing the order of the data you send. The failure state is just having to stop to wait so it's not like if it doesn't work for X game it's a disaster.

Buying characters is one of the most gamer friendly ways of doing F2P, as the free players aren't at any disadvantage at all.

Oh my.

I'll try to not just tear that appart. It'd be mean.

But the *friendly* way to do F2P is to have everything you can pay real money for be cosmetic only.

I get your point, but I could see this going either way depending on the game. For some games, as a player I'd rather have access to everything for my current character but have to pay for a different character. For others, paying for cosmetic stuff would be preferable.

From what I know about DOTA2 and LOL (which is not a whole lot), DOTA2's setup of having all the pay stuff be cosmetic seems preferable. But I'm sure some people really like the way LOL cycles through new characters all the time.

Edit: And as that example demonstrates, another factor here is how it influences development of the game. LOL makes money by producing new characters. DOTA2 makes money by producing new cosmetic content and other peripheral features. Which is preferable will depend on the game and player.

I'll try to not just tear that appart. It'd be mean.But the *friendly* way to do F2P is to have everything you can pay real money for be cosmetic only.

It works for LoL, and nobody is claiming LoL is P2W. Someone who is not paying anything for a game doesn't get to demand the whole game. As long as when they do play with the given restrictions (limited character choice, in this case) they aren't hampered, it's entirely fair. Purchasable characters also means that there is an effective cap on the amount of money you need to spend to have all the play capabilities. Actual P2W games definitely do not have any sort of cap, they want you to keep paying until your bank account is empty.

Quote:

As far "play as you download" my hopes are kind of low on that. I don't expect any kind of fancy data streaming solution, because of how complex that would be to manage from game to game. I assume whatever system the Xbox One and PS4 use they will have to be the same to save sanity for the developers, and will basically amount to developers creating separate big chunks of file packages such as:

You do realize they do that already, so they can load resources as fast as possible from slow discs into very limited RAM. While we haven't seen it before for downloading on consoles, this is not a new technology, and it's been around in PC MMOs for years now.

Quote:

And as that example demonstrates, another factor here is how it influences development of the game. LOL makes money by producing new characters. DOTA2 makes money by producing new cosmetic content and other peripheral features. Which is preferable will depend on the game and player.

LoL actually makes money on both, and it's a lot cheaper to get a bunch of characters than it is to get a bunch of skins. I'm sure they could get by on just skins (that wasn't clear when they started), but people don't have problems buying champions, so I don't see them dropping that revenue stream.

As far "play as you download" my hopes are kind of low on that. I don't expect any kind of fancy data streaming solution, because of how complex that would be to manage from game to game. I assume whatever system the Xbox One and PS4 use they will have to be the same to save sanity for the developers, and will basically amount to developers creating separate big chunks of file packages such as:

You do realize they do that already, so they can load resources as fast as possible from slow discs into very limited RAM. While we haven't seen it before for downloading on consoles, this is not a new technology, and it's been around in PC MMOs for years now.

A "slow disk", however, is still equivalent to a 50-100mb internet connection. Suddenly that's not so slow, and there, I'm referring to a standard DVD drive.

I'll try to not just tear that appart. It'd be mean.But the *friendly* way to do F2P is to have everything you can pay real money for be cosmetic only.

It works for LoL, and nobody is claiming LoL is P2W. Someone who is not paying anything for a game doesn't get to demand the whole game. As long as when they do play with the given restrictions (limited character choice, in this case) they aren't hampered, it's entirely fair. Purchasable characters also means that there is an effective cap on the amount of money you need to spend to have all the play capabilities. Actual P2W games definitely do not have any sort of cap, they want you to keep paying until your bank account is empty.

I'm really not interested in getting into a deep extended argument about this but the issue is easily summed up in two words: Character balance.

There are whole hosts of characters that aren't optimal for the game and some that are outright bad compared to others. A character you have the option of *spending money on* can be nerfed into uselessness. And is often released in an overpowered state before those nerfs happen.

The way DOTA 2 manages everything is infinitely healthier than what LOL does - and this is coming from a guy who's dumped way, way too much money into League of Legends and still plays it regularly.

A character you have the option of *spending money on* can be nerfed into uselessness.

Just like a character you have *spent time on* can be nerfed in an MMO. Perpetual multiplayer games are cyclical, and paying for a character doesn't guarantee they won't change, it just gives you access to that character. Presumably you think it's worth it at the time of purchase (otherwise why are you buying it), and if they nerf it, wait a while and they will buff it again. Remember, purchasing characters is the replacement for spending a large sum upfront or paying a subscription fee. Even if the character you bought last month got nerfed, you still supported the game. I also haven't ever seen a "buy the characters" game intentionally put the worst characters in the free pool and keep the good ones purchase only.

When you buy any game or any item in a F2P game, you have to ask yourself "do I feel good spending this money, even if nothing comes of it?". If the answer is "No, I need to get something from this," then you need to rethink the purchase, because even with a good game you could have a terrible string of unfun matches, burn out, or any number of other things. If you need value from games, either because you don't have much money to spend or can't stand the idea of spending money with no payoff but the good feeling of supporting a developer, then stick with the sure things and wait for sales, because any random $10 put towards gaming is as likely to be "wasted" as not.

As far "play as you download" my hopes are kind of low on that. I don't expect any kind of fancy data streaming solution, because of how complex that would be to manage from game to game. I assume whatever system the Xbox One and PS4 use they will have to be the same to save sanity for the developers, and will basically amount to developers creating separate big chunks of file packages such as:

You do realize they do that already, so they can load resources as fast as possible from slow discs into very limited RAM. While we haven't seen it before for downloading on consoles, this is not a new technology, and it's been around in PC MMOs for years now.

A "slow disk", however, is still equivalent to a 50-100mb internet connection. Suddenly that's not so slow, and there, I'm referring to a standard DVD drive.

Not to mention both consoles, the PS4/X1 will have a 6X BD-Rom drive, which has a data transfer rate of 216 mbps / 27 MB's.

A "slow disk", however, is still equivalent to a 50-100mb internet connection. Suddenly that's not so slow, and there, I'm referring to a standard DVD drive.

It doesn't matter, the organization and prioritization of the asset loading is the same. The point is that they are already do that for other reasons, so making it work over the network is not a stretch, it just requires MS/Sony to build the API into their content delivery system to do it.

Quote:

Not to mention both consoles, the PS4/X1 will have a 6X BD-Rom drive, which has a data transfer rate of 216 mbps / 27 MB's.

It's unlikely any games will run off disc, they will all need to be installed to play, so disc read speed isn't really relevant. They can use the same tech so that you don't have to install the whole thing before it boots, but the days of loading assets of a disc on the fly are over.

It isn't as though you won't have to wait some amount of time to start playing. And the wait time will be variable, depending on the game and your connection. But the point is that you don't have to wait for the full game to download before you start playing.

A assume disc read speed has an impact on the amount of time it takes to hdd install the game, yes? That's relevance for you right there.

The hdd install feature makes owning the physical disc even more appealing IMO. Best ot both worlds, the hard copy + the game executed from HDD.

Next gen, every single game available I will get on physical hard copy, if for nohting else just to save the same insane amoount of money I've saved by buying physical this gen.

HDD install is just the icing on the cake.

Too bad you have to put the disc in the console before you can play it.

Yep, because of this Im going all digital this generation.

I hope you enjoy waiting. Digital downloads have been around on Steam for years, and I can still physically go somewhere and buy a disk considerably faster than I can DL some content. It's....just not all it's cracked up to be. You're also not going to be going to your mate's house to play any games you own, unless you phone them up 4 hours in advance and give them your login details so they can DL whatever you're *not* bringing on a disk.

I hope you enjoy waiting. Digital downloads have been around on Steam for years, and I can still physically go somewhere and buy a disk considerably faster than I can DL some content. It's....just not all it's cracked up to be. You're also not going to be going to your mate's house to play any games you own, unless you phone them up 4 hours in advance and give them your login details so they can DL whatever you're *not* bringing on a disk.

As stated earlier, with the Xbox One and PS4, you can start playing the game before it is fully downloaded. You download the main game code and the first set of game assets and the console will tell you that the game is ready to play. It will then continue to download in the background as you play.

How long this base download will take, though, I don't know. You can also queue up a download from the web and it will start downloading right away on your console. Great for when you want to queue up a game download while you are at work.

You'll still have to wait, but not nearly as long as you are used to with Steam.

Next gen, every single game available I will get on physical hard copy, if for nohting else just to save the same insane amoount of money I've saved by buying physical this gen.

It's not very likely that disc versions will last until the end of the generation, or even midway. They probably would have been fine dumping the discs entirely, but I can see why they didn't want to risk it for launch, it would have undoubtedly set off another irrational mob of hateful fanboys creating bad PR.

Quote:

I hope you enjoy waiting. Digital downloads have been around on Steam for years, and I can still physically go somewhere and buy a disk considerably faster than I can DL some content.

Then your internet connection really sucks. You also seem to have completely missed the last page of discussion, where we were talking about how you will only need to download a small part of the game to start playing.